Post by fumobici on May 23, 2012 22:44:04 GMT

Throughout your life you enjoy good health, your children are born for free in a hospital, you pay your taxes and then all of a sudden you realise all through your working life you've been subsidising the antics of yobs, thugs, the ones who don't want to work, the people from other countries who fly in to take advantage of your education and health service, the benefits of those deliberately abusing the system, the work shy, the spongers on society who all they contribute is/are more children of the same mind set....

You've certainly managed to infer a great deal of things I never said from the things I did say.

Isn't it a bit like the pot calling the kettle black?

"Dirty immigrants and lazy undeserving poor...."That seems to be your interpretation of what I actually did say - which was nothing like that. It appears you've managed to infer a great deal of things I never said from the things I did say.

Post by fumobici on May 23, 2012 23:01:06 GMT

Indeed. This is an interesting graph showing amounts spent per capita vs. longevity outcomes in a selection of industrialized countries:

It's obvious that some countries have massively more efficient systems than others. The outlier of course is the US which spends ridiculous amounts per person and gets very little in terms of results. If you want an efficient affordable system the worst you could do is emulate the US with its private system. The waste in the US system is truly mind boggling, and the most amazing part is that the average American is so totally brainwashed they have no idea how many thousands of dollars per year every man woman and child is taxed by industry to support this for profit trainwreck. Americans by and large think they have a good system and that socialized medicine would be a disaster as private enterprise is magically always more efficient than government. Stupid doesn't really cover it.

Post by lagatta on May 24, 2012 0:44:56 GMT

I don't really want to get into this discussion much as I don't like discussing politics on a travel board. For example, I personally like imec very much, but we obviously have utterly opposite outlooks... and economic situations. And I've always worked hard too, have never been on benefits.

Obviously, when we talk about something being "free" in a complex industrial or post-industrial society, it does not imply that it is free of cost to produce or distribute. We boast of our free healthcare in Canada, but any look at our taxes shows the cost. But it is cheaper, per Canadian, than the US system. There are other things nobody thinks of making "cost-bearing", such as the roads (except for a few public-private highways) or police and fire protection services. There are countries where people actually do have to pay if they call the fire brigade - this results in huge fires, and a great cost for society.

I am in favour of either free tuition or perhaps a moderate user fee to discourage the kind of abuse bjd cites. That doesn't have to be very large. University education pays off for society, as on average students will have higher incomes and pay more taxes. However, that does not mean that EACH student will. Some don't wind up in high-earning fields and can be crippled by debt. I certainly couldn't afford to return to university at the fee levels announced.

I also think we need more emphasis on quality trades and technical education, which should not be seen as an escape route for "losers".

Post by imec on May 24, 2012 1:19:14 GMT

lagatta, you cannot, honestly and with good conscience, agree with the methods of these morons??? Even if you believe in no fee secondary education, this is NOT the way to bring it about. And frankly, I dont believe anyone with even a cursory awareness of this situation believes it is about tuition at all (will ya look at me?!) anymore. Would you truly support these people if this prevented you from earning your living? Or from completing your education? Really???

Post by mich64 on May 24, 2012 3:22:06 GMT

But the Police use force when they are confronted by violence they are not instigating it. There are many cameras out there recording there every move. If there was abuse happening it would be showed by the media. Protesters do not have the right to instigate unlawful behavior just so they can highlight their cause. Demonstrations are legal for the purpose of peaceful protest.

I do know that the Police have protocols on when and how they try to control these situations so they do not result in violence and damage. They do not want to be forced into altercations, they want to protect all concerned and allow for peaceful demonstrations.

Demonstrations/Protests have changed dramatically since 9/11, they have attracted groups who have nothing to do with the protest, they attract those who want to add havoc. The message of the protesters is not being heard.

Post by kerouac2 on May 24, 2012 5:29:32 GMT

The foreign media have not really been showing us much in the way of violence -- just a few windows broken from time to time. Canada is an extremely lucky country if this is the extent of civil disorder, compared to events over the last year in London, Cairo or Athens.

Then again, there were those incidents in Vancouver. But I believe that concerned a relatively small group and just a couple of days, not at all comparable to the masses of people in Montréal.

Post by bjd on May 24, 2012 6:48:45 GMT

I think it's very difficult to understand and judge what is going on from the outside. These strikes and demonstrations in Montreal were barely mentioned in France (granted I don't have a TV but I do listen to news on the radio, read an international (! IHT) paper, and look at news sites on the internet). Yesterday, I finally heard it mentioned on France Info (a government-owned news station) and all they did was interview a few people who had come to demonstrate against the new law -- not students, but a grandfather, a unionist and a young woman. No mention of what the reasons for the law was, no mention of violence, they did say it was sparked by an increase in tuition fees, but without mentioning that they would be increased over 5 years.

I actually learned about these protests on France 24 and the BBC website. Who also mention student protests and demonstrations in Chile.

Mich, violent demonstrations did not begin with 9/11. For years in France, student & high school pupil demonstrations were marred by "casseurs", who simply joined in to cause damage along the way. And I don't remember the date of the riots in Seattle, but I think they pre-date 9/11. Not to mention violence demonstrations in many other countries. Perhaps in Canada, which was not the theatre of many large demonstrations anyway?

Post by lagatta on May 24, 2012 11:08:58 GMT

There were huge demonstrations in Montréal against the Iraq war, in 2003, at -25°c, well over 200.000 people at the largest ones - and Mtl is much smaller than Paris, with a far less populated country (in the sense of Québec) to draw upon. They were utterly peaceful, no casseurs whatsoever.

There have been some casseurs at these, especially the nighttime demonstrations, and the would-be anarchist (but mostly arseholeist) "Black Block". Nothing at the daytime demonstrations.

As for loss of work, sorry to go into this, the main factor in a downturn in work and income I had, particularly rough in 2010, was the Harper government's draconian cuts to arts funding. I managed to scout out some more clients since then, but it has been very patchy.

Post by kerouac2 on May 24, 2012 15:00:42 GMT

In most cities we find it hard to take demonstrations seriously until there are vehicles flaming in the streets. And of course it must be very disappointing to only have a few rocks to throw instead of paving stones.

Post by mich64 on May 24, 2012 15:40:47 GMT

Yes Lagatta, I agree with your comments, demonstrations in Canada have been very large and very peaceful. Regarding the Black Block, that is what I am referring to when saying why protests have become so unpredictable that cause Police presence almost mandatory now. You never know when these anarchists are going to join in. This is why the Governments are having to legislate stricter legislation's on demonstrations all because of a small group of trouble makers.

When the media showed the anarchists had entered the schools, bullied students who chose to return to class, damaged facilities and were taunting the general public, that is when something had to be done.

Canada is very fortunate that we do not have many issues of civil disorder and when it happened in Vancouver most Canadians were shocked how this escalated. Citizens in turn contacted the Police with information and video to enable the Police to arrest individuals responsible for damages.

Lagatta I am concerned as well with the way the Harper government is quite comfortable with cutting funding to the arts, he sees no value therefore has no desire to preserve funding needed and he makes no apologies for doing so. Then again, I do not have much faith in any of the Parties that they would not do the same thing blaming these economic times.

Post by kerouac2 on May 24, 2012 17:02:39 GMT

If this new law actually works, it will certainly confirm that North America is very different from Europe... or Syria. They would never pass a law or make a decree hindering or preventing demonstrations here, because they know very well that it just throws oil on the fire and makes the demonstrators even more determined. What they do say is that police presence will be increased and that all criminal acts will be fully prosecuted. This makes the demonstrators police themselves very carefully to prevent future incidents -- and it works.

Fellow demonstrators are much more merciless with trashers than the police when their cause is on the line. I really cannot believe that the Québec government does not know this.

Post by imec on May 24, 2012 18:04:14 GMT

I'm no fan of Harper nor his henchmen. In fact I took great delight in telling Angus Reid (a national pollster) this just yesterday. There was a specific question regarding his performance with respect to funding arts and culture - I rated him as "very poor" (there wasn't a lower rating available).

Post by imec on May 25, 2012 0:34:04 GMT

I signed up to receive surveys online - largely so there would be one more voice telling the people of Canada that this clown Harpo MUST GO. In the 36 years I have been allowed to vote, I have never been more angry about a leader. I may have said it here before but I will say it again - this man and his followers make me ashamed to be a Canadian. (there was even a question on yesterday's poll that offered that word as a choice about how you feel about the Harper government - it felt VERY good to tick that box!).

Post by kerouac2 on May 27, 2012 16:38:06 GMT

I was reading an article in La Presse today about the continuing demonstrations. The police were saying that they were not going to arrest anybody for demonstrating unless there was severe disorder. In fact, only one person was arrested yesterday. So much for that law....

Post by lagatta on May 28, 2012 1:30:42 GMT

Yes, the police seem to be arresting people for acts that are criminal under the normal Criminal Code, or other standing offences (except in mass arrest cases, but even then, the special law was not usually invoked).

Only one person arrested is fewer than are usually arrested in central districts for things like public urination.

I want to make it clear that I am NOT excusing vandalism as in damage to property, but there is far, far, infinitely more of that at hockey riots. I remember some of those that became mass looting and wrecking sprees, and a lot of fisticuffs fuelled by youthful male testosterone and far too much to drink.

Post by casimira on Jun 8, 2012 10:21:26 GMT

I haven't chimed in on this thread for various reasons. Mainly, I try to avoid discussing politics on here after being bashed in both a PM and on the board for what wasn't even a political statement!!!!Anyway, I am compelled now to say that if only,if only, what does appear to be a pack mentalityof spoiled seemingly entitled brats making noise and being destructive when the noise isn't enough,knew how many young people here in the US end up having to pay off student loans for up to 10 years to get a secondary education,and more beyond that,(it took me many,many years to pay off my graduate school tuition) these people would quietly head home with their frying pans and get some gratitude.I do believe that in an ideal world, ALL education should be free.Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world.Brats!

Post by imec on Jun 8, 2012 11:23:16 GMT

So you don't think that they deserve a better system than the United States?

"better"? By what measure? Cheaper? It already is - way. Better quality education? Someone's gotta pay - don't make it ME. Canadians, and Quebec in particular have it both ways - access to cheap, albeit underfunded education or the option of crossing the border to better funded schools in the US if they can afford it.

I'm delighted to hear people begin to speak out against this utter nonsense...

Post by kerouac2 on Jun 8, 2012 12:05:51 GMT

Ah, the whole concept of "better" is the whole point since none of us in other countries have the slightest idea about the real quality of Canadian education so the only element that can be (falsely) compared is the amount paid by the end user. Naturally lots of taxes have been poured on before you get there.

I know that there is a belief that better funded schools provide a better education, but I only have my personal experience to cause me to question this. When my family moved from Mississippi to California when I was in high school, I knew that I was moving from the state that spent the very least on education in the United States to the state that spent the most. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the school in California was not only no better than the school I had left but instead much worse. And yet it was fully equipped with all of the latest stuff -- which was part of the problem. Some of the teachers would put on a video for the 50 minutes of class and leave the room. they could have never done that in Mississippi, because they were actually obliged to teach.

I wonder if Canadian medical care would be better if Canadians paid the same prices as in the United States.

Post by casimira on Jun 8, 2012 14:21:25 GMT

Yes,there's much to be said about the argument of what is "better".I attended a private parochial school in NY earlier on and then for monetary reasons had to transfer to a NY public school, also, considered along with California,at that time anyway,to have one of the best public school systems in the US.I was almost 2 years ahead academically when I transferred.

I'm curious as to what the stats are with regard to how many Canadian citizens attend US secondary schools and how many US citizens cross the border to attend Canadian schools.

Post by imec on Jun 8, 2012 14:40:14 GMT

Come on k, you know that's a spurious argument at best - there's enough life left in this board without a mod resorting to trolling for the sake of traffic. A minimum level of funding is essential for ANY system to work and the reality is the funding levels of some secondary schools here is falling dangerously close or even below that level. It's a real problem in my own province where the provincial government has hamstrung the universities with too many successive years of tuition freezes.

As for health care, again, what is meant by "better"? And more importantly, what DO Canadians pay for health care??? Some would say "nothing" and they'd be right - those who pay little to no income tax and who don't drink, smoke, drive a vehicle, buy goods from the store etc. indeed have access to primary, secondary, tertiary, chronic, community and palliative care at no charge (there are some holes when it comes to drugs, eye care and dental care however). Others would say "LOTS" - those with well paying jobs pay high levels of income tax and significant taxes on liquor, tobacco, gasoline and purchased goods AND services, some (how much is unclear) of which goes to fund the "free" medical system.

Beware however of comparative statistics related to "per capita health care spending". Governments (here at least) are notorious for their creative accounting practices when calculating such costs (as a representative of a provider of goods and services to the health care system I have some knowledge of this). For instance... Does Canada's reported per capita spend take into account:

Private funding from foundations?Services provided by volunteers?Home care provided by family members?Cost of facilities? (often, gov't organizations omit this from their costs)Costs NOT covered by the system? (vision care, dental, ambulances, drugs... )

And I'm not even getting into the costs to the economy when say an individual is at home while they are unable to work but must wait considerable time for a necessary surgical procedure...

Post by kerouac2 on Jun 8, 2012 16:58:31 GMT

Imec, I am not trolling at all and this discussion has certainly not brought in anybody from outside.

I am genuinely interested in the subject since higher education is (almost) free in most of Europe and that is how the vast majority of people believe that it should be. So what intrigues me about the events in Québec is how a place with a low cost system could possibly decide to change it to something worse.

Education benefits everybody, including the people who do not go to school. Paying taxes for education benefits everybody whether or not they have children. A well educated population is more efficient and generates improvements for anyone in the country. I am happy to have well educated bankers, businessmen, teachers, police, politicians, engineers, doctors, architects, etc. Many of these people could not have paid for education from profitmaking institutions, and if they had not been able to go to university, there would be more unemployment, more crime, more drug use, more violence, etc. I am extremely satisfied to help pay for 100% of qualified students to attend university instead of having wealthy people send their children to university whether or not they have the intellectual capacity, reject 50% of the qualified students with insufficient money, and have maybe 30 or 40% go deeply into debt to pay for their studies simply because their parents did not manage to be rich.

Maybe you think that the system is absolutely perfect, but I can tell you that if they tried to double the fees for students in France, Germany, Italy or Spain, they would have an absolute revolution on their hands. But none of these countries would ever consider such an action, because they believe in equal education no matter what your economic level. Perhaps the European governments are extremely stupid according to Canadian standards.

I have not attacked the Canadian authorities in any way, because I don't know what sort of problems they may be facing and if the situation is so desperate that they must sacrifice an educational system on the altar of profits. Maybe the whole country risks collapse or annexation by the southern neighbour if it does not kneel down in submission. Frankly, I am completely at a loss.